Slashdot Mirror


Will the Next Election Be Hacked?

plasmacutter writes to let us know about the new article by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in Rolling Stone, following up on his "Was the 2004 Election Stolen?" (slashdotted here). Kennedy recounts the sorry history of electronic voting so far in this country — and some of the incidents will be new even to this clued-in crowd. (Had you heard about the CERT advisory on an undocumented backdoor account in a Diebold vote-tabulating database — crediting Black Box Voting?) Kennedy's reporting is bolstered by the accounts of a Diebold insider who has gone on record with his concerns. From the article: 'Chris Hood remembers the day in August 2002 that he began to question what was really going on in Georgia... "It was an unauthorized patch, and they were trying to keep it secret from the state," Hood told me. "We were told not to talk to county personnel about it. I received instructions directly from [president of Diebold election unit Bob] Urosevich...' According to Hood, Diebold employees altered software in some 5,000 machines in DeKalb and Fulton counties, the state's largest Democratic strongholds. The tally in Georgia that November surprised even the most seasoned political observers. (Hint: Republicans won.)

14 of 904 comments (clear)

  1. As soon as you have people willing to cheat.. by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Interesting

    the process is over. It doesn't matter who votes for who, it only matters who counts the votes.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:As soon as you have people willing to cheat.. by El+Cubano · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It also doesn't matter who wins. The losing side will claim the winners stole the election. I fail to see how electronic voting has changed this. It is being going on for a long time.

    2. Re:As soon as you have people willing to cheat.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Electronic voting removes what semblance of vote verifiability existed with paper votes (real recounts) while enabling easy, broad tampering.

    3. Re:As soon as you have people willing to cheat.. by plalonde2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why are Americans such complete and utter *morons* about vote counting? Why do they insist on centralizing vote-counting, one of the most *scalable* problems in civic governance? Instead, form a multi-partisan committee of volunteers fore *each* ballot box. Split up your voting population to keep each box to under 1000 votes or so. Do the count immediately at the close of polling, at the polling place, with the committee and as many observers as signed up in advance (if your party can't muster a volunteer per ballot box, you're not a serious contender in that district).
      If you do it the decentralized way you have to corrupt *a lot* of committees to sway the vote substantially. If you centralize the vote counting (moving ballot boxes, electronic voting, etc) you reduce the number of people you have to coopt dramatically. Clearly, anyone intending to corrupt a vote will prefer centralized alternatives. Anyone trying to demonstrate a fair and just election must prefer the decentralized, hard-to-corrupt model.

    4. Re:As soon as you have people willing to cheat.. by plalonde2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nice troll moderation there. At least argue the point.
      1. Centralized voting means you only need to corrupt small number of people to corrupt an election.
      2. Decentralized voting means you need to corrupt many, many people to substantially change an election result.
      3. The US has a history of centralizing its vote counting, using techniques such as moving ballot boxes to central counting locations, and using electronic means to centralize counting.

      Given the amount of noise about appearance of fraud in US elections, why isn't vote counting de-centralized? Other democracies seem to manage.

  2. Re:Oh goodie! by Entrope · · Score: 5, Informative

    Maryland Governor Bob Ehrlich, a Republican, ran into stiff opposition after (Diebold?) voting machines caused major problems in the state's primary elections this year. Ehrlich wanted to switch to paper-based methods that were known to be reliable. The opposition was NOT from his own party, but from the state's Democratic majority and career bureaucrats.

  3. Give me a printout! by Tod+DeBie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't mind the idea of electronic voting, just be sure to give me a printout of my vote in plain english with a tracking number so that I can validate it later on. We cannot just take them at their word on this. This is one of the few cases where I think a paper trail is a must!

  4. Re:News for Nerds No Longer by aussersterne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The slant is so obvious.

    Always the conservatives are screaming about "balance." Reality itself is not "fair and balanced." The Republicans are destroying the country, the environment, and the Earth. Not the Democrats. So get over it. The very notion that media needs to be "balanced" is how we got into this position in the first place.

    Media is supposed to report on what is happening. Not make you feel better about your political views if they suck, or make you feel as though you're just as good as everyone else if you're not.

    --
    STOP . AMERICA . NOW
  5. Get it through your think head: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We just don't give a fuck. The Prime Minister of Hungary is caught admitting to lying to the public about the economy on tape and Hungarians are out RIOTING (including tear gas!) in the streets. Our President has all but been caught lying about everything, royally fucking up everthing he's touched in the process, and the best we can muster is Bill Clinton, Richard Clarke, and Cindy Sheehan.

  6. This issue is too important for political parties. by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't care what political party you are in (or which party you hate).

    Honest elections should NOT be a political issue. It should be a PATRIOTIC issue.

    We need a list of requirements for honest elections and we, THE PEOPLE, need to work with each other to get them implemented.

    I don't care if you're Liberal or Republican or Libertarian or Communist or Green. I will gladly work with you for honest elections in America. You may beat my favoured Party, but we should all be able to see that it was an honest election and an honest victory.

  7. Re:Oh goodie! by Jeremi · · Score: 5, Insightful
    And chances are, it would be just as nonsensical as this.


    You may be right... there may be nothing to this but paranoia and sour grapes on the part of Democrats that lost.


    But with Diebold style machines, how can anyone ever prove otherwise? With no paper trail, this issue is going to come up in every single election. The loser will claim that the election was stolen, and there will be no way for anyone to prove that it didn't happen.


    That's why we need systems where the results are open to public inspection/recount and difficult to hack. Paper ballots meet this criteria. Electronic machines with a voter-verified paper trail meet this criteria. Diebold machines do not. Even if we assumed that every person involved with those machines was in fact 100% honest and above cheating, they'd still be unusable as an electoral mechanism, because every election result would be suspect.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  8. Re: Will the Next Election Be Hacked? by john82 · · Score: 5, Informative

    It would seem that seem that RFK Jr and many in the public have a rather myopic memory when it comes to allegations of vote fraud. One would expect that Mr Kennedy would certainly be aware of the controversy surrounding the outcome of the 1960 Presdential election especially since his uncle John F. Kennedy was elected.

    Or was he? Rather than Ohio and Florida, that election came down to narrow wins in Illinois and Texas. Both states were Democrat-controlled and rife with allegations of fraud. Did Mayor Daley of Chicago arrange for the dead to vote? Did Johnson's own political machine throw Texas? Like 2004, the answers depend on who you ask.

  9. Why do you need machines? by FromellaSlob · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here in the UK we use old-fashioned paper ballots, hand counted. No tabulating machines, no hanging chads, no technology at all. In a General Election, the polls close at 10PM and the earliest constituencies usually declare their results around 1AM. By 8AM the next morning there are only a few left to declare and the result is known. This is in a country of some 60 million people - there is no reason why it couldn't scale up to the US population. Why complicate things and introduce more potential for fraud?

  10. Re:Ever work an exit poll? by cyberon22 · · Score: 5, Informative

    CNN changed their exit polls for a number of states after the election was called for Bush. The numbers you are seeing at that site were not the numbers produced by their polling organization. You can check the link below, or simply Google for "CNN" and "change" and "exit polls".

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboa rd.php?az=view_all&address=132x1293911

    This isn't exactly a secret. You guys have some serious problems on your hands.